Samantha George 6/25/2012 Case McNeil-PPC Inc. v Pfizer Inc. nite! State" #i"trict Co$rt% S.#. Ne& 'or(.

McNeil-PPC Inc.% Plaintiff Pfizer Inc.% #efen!ant 2005 Summary In )$ne of 200*% Pfizer Inc.% the !efen!ant% !elivere! a con"$mer a!verti"ement calle! +,he -ig -ang. claiming% /i"terine 0nti"e1tic Mo$th rin"e i" a" effective a" !ental flo"" i" at fighting 1la2$e an! gingiviti". ,he3 al"o "tate! there &ere clinical "t$!ie" to 4ac( $1 the claim ma!e in the a!verti"ement". 5o&ever% in the commercial"% it ca$tion" there i" no re1lacement for flo""ing% 4$t then re1eat" t&o a!!itional time" /i"terine i" a" effective a" !ental flo"" again"t 1la2$e an! gingiviti". It al"o "ho&" a "tream of li2$i! coming o$t of a /i"terine 4ottle% tracing a 1iece of !ental flo"" from a container% an! then &hirling aro$n! an! 4et&een teeth% "ho&ing the act of flo""ing% 4$t &ith /i"terine. McNeil-PPC Inc.% the 1laintiff% i" the mar(et lea!er in the "ale" of !ental flo"" among other !ental 1ro!$ct". ,he3 acc$"e! Pfizer of fal"e a!verti"ing an! $nfair com1etition% in violation of the /anham 0ct an! the "tate la&. McNeil claim" the "tatement ma!e 43 Pfizer that clinical "t$!ie" 1rove /i"terine i" a" effective a" flo"" again"t 1la2$e an! gingiviti"% i" fal"e. In a!!ition% the3 claim the a!verti"ement" are o4vio$"l3 claiming that /i"terine i" a re1lacement for flo"" thi" i" fal"e.

Samantha George 6/25/2012 Issue #oe" McNeil ma(e a vali! claim again"t Pfizer6 5a" Pfizer fal"el3 a!verti"e their 1ro!$ct" claiming it can re1lace flo""ing th$" violating the /anham 0ct an! the "tate la&6 #oe" Pfizer mi"lea! con"$mer" into 4$3ing their 1ro!$ct" in the a!verti"ement"6 Ruling ,he co$rt r$le! in the ca"e of McNeil-PPC Inc. v Pfizer Inc.% that the a!verti"ement" &ere mi"lea!ing con"$mer" 4eca$"e the "tatement% clinical "t$!ie" 1rove /i"terine i" a" effective a" flo"" again"t 1la2$e an! gingiviti"% ma!e in the commercial i" not tr$e. Pfizer7" "t$!ie" act$all3 concl$!e! that there &a" no "$4"tit$te for flo""ing an! that 1eo1le "ho$l! contin$e to flo"". ,he commercial" mi"inter1ret the re"$lt" of the "t$!ie" to mi"lea! con"$mer" to 4$3 the 1ro!$ct an! co$l! ca$"e an increa"e in "ale". It can al"o ca$"e "omeone to !o "omething that co$l! 4e harmf$l an! increa"e their !ental 1ro4lem" or "tart ne& one". -eca$"e of thi"% the co$rt grante! an in8$nction ca$"ing the a!verti"ement" to 4e cancele!. My Opinion In the ca"e of McNeil-PPC Inc. v Pfizer Inc.% I 4elieve the co$rt r$le! fairl3. ,he a!verti"ement ma!e 43 Pfizer i" mi"lea!ing% it can ca$"e "omeone li(e me to "to1 flo""ing an! 4$3 their 1ro!$ct% increa"ing "ale". ,he3 !i! not thin( that "omeone &ho"e !octor tol! them to flo"" !ail3 might "to1 an! in"tea! 4$3 thi" 1ro!$ct ca$"ing more !ental i""$e". Someone co$l! have "$e! Pfizer for mi"lea!ing them ca$"ing him or her% to "to1 flo""ing an! Pfizer &o$l! have lo"t mone3 !$e to thi". Discussion

Samantha George 6/25/2012 9ith the co$rt7" r$ling McNeil ha" not "$ffere! an3 lo""e"% the3 co$l! lo"t "ale" 4eca$"e of the fal"e a!verti"ing ma!e 43 Pfizer. McNeil7" "ale" of !ental flo"" have 4een "ta4le from &hen the a!verti"ement &a" la$nche! to the !a3 of the hearing. 5o&ever% the "ale" of Pfizer7" /i"terine have increa"e! "ince the commercial" have 4een on televi"ion. :or an in!ivi!$al the lo"" co$l! have 4een greater 4eca$"e the3 co$l! have "to11e! flo""ing increa"ing their !ental 1ro4lem". ,hi" co$l! have ca$"e! an increa"e in their !ental 4ill" ca$"ing the con"$mer to have a greater lo"" than Pfizer an! McNeil.